Feasibility and safety of orbital atherectomy for the treatment of in-stent restenosis secondary to stent under-expansion.

BACKGROUND: Debulking and ablative techniques are sometimes used for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) secondary to resistant stent under-expansion (SU). The safety and effectiveness of orbital atherectomy (OA) in this cohort of patients has not been reported. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients treated with OA for ISR secondary to balloon undilatable SU at two academic tertiary care centers between October 2016 and June 2019. Angiographic or intravascular imaging identified SU. Technical success was defined as residual 0% stenosis with TIMI III flow. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients were included in the study. Patients had an average age of 65 ± 12 years; 73% male, 61% diabetic, 41% with prior coronary artery bypass grafting, 61% with a prior incident of ISR, 51% presented with stable angina, 17% unstable angina, and 32% non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (MI). Implantation of the under-expanded stents occurred between 2 months and 22 years prior to the index procedure. A total of 27% of patients had multiple layers of stents in the target lesion and 32% of patients had in-stent chronic total occlusion. Technical success was achieved in 40 (98%) patients. There were 2 (5%) major adverse cardiovascular events; both of them were periprocedural MI from the no-reflow phenomenon. There were 2 (5%) Ellis type II coronary perforations that required no intervention. CONCLUSIONS: OA can be effectively performed as an adjunctive tool in the treatment of ISR with balloon undilatable SU. The use of OA for SU is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and is "off label" and caution must be used to limit any device/stent interaction.

Henry Ford HEART Score Randomized Trial: Rapid Discharge of Patients Evaluated for Possible Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Hospital evaluation of patients with chest pain is common and costly. The HEART score risk stratification tool that merges troponin testing into a clinical risk model for evaluation emergency department patients with possible acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been shown to effectively identify a substantial low-risk subset of patients possibly safe for early discharge without stress testing, a strategy that could have tremendous healthcare savings implications. METHOD AND RESULTS: A total of 105 patients evaluated for AMI in the emergency departments of 2 teaching hospitals in the Henry Ford Health System (Detroit and West Bloomfield, MI), between February 2014 and May 2015, with a modified HEART score ≤3 (which includes cardiac troponin I <0.04 ng/mL at 0 and 3 hours) were randomized to immediate discharge (n=53) versus management in an observation unit with stress testing (n=52). The primary end points were 30-day total charges and length of stay. Secondary end points were all-cause death, nonfatal AMI, rehospitalization for evaluation of possible AMI, and coronary revascularization at 30 days. Patients randomized to early discharge, compared with those who were admitted for observation and cardiac testing, spent less time in the hospital (median 6.3 hours versus 25.9 hours; P<0.001) with an associated reduction in median total charges of care ($2953 versus $9616; P<0.001). There were no deaths, AMIs, or coronary revascularizations in either group. One patient in each group was lost to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients evaluated for possible AMI in the emergency department with a modified HEART score ≤3, early discharge without stress testing as compared with transfer to an observation unit for stress testing was associated with significant reductions in length of stay and total charges, a finding that has tremendous potential national healthcare expenditure implications. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03058120.